this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
798 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

86131 readers
3236 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying that the ships would like it. Also having used geosynchronous satellite internet I have first hand experience that the lag sucks. Better than nothing, but Starlink has less lag. Probably faster but I don't know what the latest speeds are. Still geosynchronous covers a lot of area which means you are sharing with a lot of people.

Cruise ships pay a lot for internet because their customers want it. Crew on all ships want it for their breaks.

Starlink isn't worth it for just the above, but add in rural people on land and it makes sense. Though I understand the astronomers hate it.

[–] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'll be short with you.: I don't care how much nicer starlink is, putting that many satellites into low earth orbit all the time is not good for the climate. The few thousand people on ships at any given time can wait to stream high def porn or download it while at port. All the needed uses of the internet can be met via slow higher orbiting satellites.

[–] deadcream@sopuli.xyz 0 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Lots of things are not necessary and are bad for the climate. You likely enjoy many of them. You start by reducing your own consumption.

[–] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 hours ago

High speed internet from constantly decaying satellites is not necessary.

[–] sexhaver87@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

God, if this isn't the most "Fuck You!" reply you could've made

[–] Dpek@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Frankly its just about as much as anyone should care

Ohmmy's comment is essentualy "its bad for the envirement" (as if its not true for everything) and "they should just deal with it as is" as an attempt to shutdown the arguement

I very much dont see how it would have continued any other way (excludeing a few roundabouts)

[–] sexhaver87@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

Sometimes the best alternative is nothing at all